THE NEW ZEALAND SOCIAL STUDIES CURRICULUM STRUGGLE …

Waikato Journal of Edttcation 7:2001

THE NEW ZEALAND SOCIAL STUDIESCURRICULUM STRUGGLE 1993-1997:AN "INSIDER" ANALYSIS

PHILIPPA HUNTER AND PAUL KEOWNDepartment of Social, Physical and Health EditcationUniversity of Waikato

ABSTRACT The development 0/Social Studies in the New Zealand Curriculumover the 1993-1997 period was highly contested. The authors were directly involved in thesocial studies development over this period, and this paper reflects on some of the majorevents in the development, from our "insiders" viewpoint. The paper argues that thecontest was strongly influenced by two major "dominant voice groups with very differentviews on luhat a social studies curriculum should be like and by key elements of thepolitical and economic reform agenda of the day. The paper traces the rise and fall ininfluence of each "dominant voice" group and also examines the way in which the reformagenda changed throughout the development. It argues that in the end the inclusive andliberal-democratic voice ivas dominant over the neo-liberal and educationally conservativeone. It also suggests that a return to a more cooperative, negotiated style of curriculumdevelopment, rather than a pure "market-contract model" approach, luas needed to bringthe development to a satisfactory conclusion.

INTRODUCTION

Curriculum historians and theorists have long recognised that curriculum ishighly contested. Lee and Hill (1996, p. 19) note that "historical scholarship hasupheld the view that political as well as economic and social considerations haveunderpinned the New Zealand curriculum since 1877". Layton (1972, 1988) andGoodson (1992) have demonstrated in cases of the sciences and geography inEngland, that subjects develop and grow, and decay through a multi-facetedprocess where the ideas and actions of a whole range of individuals and groupsinteract. Archer and Openshaw (1992, p. 49) argue that "curricula are the productsof struggle in which various competing interests attempt to secure the dominanceof their own particular ideologies and beliefs". McGee (1995, p. 29) comments that,"Curriculum changes result from a highly complex mix of ideological, political,social, philosophical, economic and other influences".

McCulloch (1992) has shown how processes similar to those outlined byLayton and Goodson operate in the New Zealand social sciences curriculum in achapter on the New Zealand geography curriculum from 1944. Openshaw andArcher (1992) have documented the history of the struggles to establish socialstudies as a subject in the secondary school between 1942 and 1964. Judith McGee(1998) has similarly analysed the forces that competed in an attempt to shape thecitizenship dimensions of New Zealand curriculum through social studies from1900 to the 1990s. Social Studies in the New Zealand Curricuhtm (SSNZC) (Ministry ofEducation, 1997) is the latest social studies curriculum statement to emerge fromthe process of contest, struggle, and debate that surrounds any new curriculumdevelopment. A complex mix of ideological, political, social, philosophical, andeconomic influences were involved and the struggle so intense that two draftswere written and rejected before the final document was published.

56 Philippa Hunter and Paul Keown

There has been considerable discussion of the merits of the final curriculumstatement and the processes by which it was developed. However, only threeauthors have engaged in any in-depth analysis of the nature of the curriculumcontest surrounding the development of the curriculum. Openshaw (1998, 1999and 2000) has examined the submissions to Social Studies in the New ZealandCurricitlum: Draft (Ministry of Education, 1994) in considerable detail and hasprovided some very valuable insights into the nature of the struggle andcontestation surrounding this phase of the development. Openshaw and Benson(1998) have also examined some aspects of the events surrounding the seconddraft and the final document. In addition. Mutch (1998, 1999) has analysed thedevelopment, emphasising swings from "left" to "right" and finally back to the"centre". The work of these writers has been very valuable. However, it has beenanalysis "from the outside", that is, by those not directly involved, and it leavesmuch unsaid; particularly an analysis of the later stages of the development. Inthis paper, as individuals directly involved in the development of SSNZC, we aimto extend and broaden the analysis and discussion of the intense strugglessurrounding the development, by providing a view "from the inside".

A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSING THE SSNZC DEVELOPMENT

The forces involved in the development of SSNZC were complex and interrelated.However, within the length constraints of this paper, we concentrate on just twokey dimensions of the struggle. Firstly, and follovying Goodson (1992), Lee andHill (1996), McCulloch (1992), McGee (1995), McGee (1998), and Openshaw andArcher (1992), we focus on the "competing interests attempt(ing) to secure thedominance of their own particular ideologies and beliefs." (Archer & Openshaw,1992, p. 49). We employ the imagery of a public dialogue where a number ofcompeting voices strive to be heard and to have influence over the final outcomeof the development. Secondly, and following Elley (1996), Philips, (2000), andSnook (1997), we focus on two elements of the political and economic reformagenda of the 1980s and 1990s that had important impacts on the development.One of these was the drive for efficiency gains, and the second was the desire toachieve a free market and avoid provider capture in public sector affairs.

Within the competing interests frame, we argue that there were twodominant voice groups influencing the development, each containing distinctcontributing voices. We suggest that one of the dominant voice groups can bethought of as voices calling for an open, inclusive, negotiated, and liberal-democratic kind of social studies curriculum. The other dominant voice groupcontains voices favouring more sectarian (neo-liberal), closed (Eurocentric), andeducationally conservative social studies.

The first of these two groups had within it a very wide range of contributingcommunities and voices. Some of these suggested that social studies needed toreflect a maturing post-colonial Aotearoa/New Zealand. Others emphasised theimportance of consensus decision-making in a liberal democracy. A third voicecalled for social studies to be in tune with the cultural and postmodern turn of thedisciplines that underpin the social science dimension of the curriculum. Yetothers asked for an evolutionary education-centred curriculum developmentprocess within the tradition of cooperation that produced the 1977 Form 1 - 4social studies syllabus guidelines, and the senior history, geography and economicsyllabi of the late 1980s.

The New Z e a l a n d Social S t u d i e s C u r r i c t t l u m Strttggle 1 9 9 3 - 1 9 9 7 . . . 5 7

The second group was more tighfly focused. Many of its contributingcommunities and voices were clustered around a neo-liberal economic andpolitical reform agenda. This emphasised school-based management, competition,cost-cutting, and a market approach in education on the one hand, and tighterspecification and greater control from the centre with more accountability andsurveillance on the other. Another voice within this group was based around aneducationally conservative position following recent trends in Europe and NorthAmerica. There, strong conservative education movements have argued that socialstudies as a subject is not a suitable vehicle for social science education. Historyand geography for all students at all levels, they implied, was a better option.

The radical changes derived from public choice theory and managerialismwere also very influential. A number of writers have shown just how far-reachingsuch influences were in the curriculum field (Elley, 1996; Philips, 2000; Snook,1997). Here we focus on two aspects of these changes. Firsfly, Philips notes that theeconomic reform programme initiated by the Labour government in 1984 lead toan increasing focus on a market-based approach to social policy, includingeducation.

Social expenditure was considered too high, so efficiency gains weresought through various measures such as restructuring governmentagencies, devolution of functions (e.g. through contracting services)formerly carried out centrally, a more contestable policy environmentand increased accountability for meeting defined outcomes (Philips,2000, p.l43).

All of these elements were evident in the social studies curriculum development of1993 - 1997 and can be discerned in the structure of the development, the nature ofthe process followed and in aspects of the content and style of the curriculumitself.

Secondly, Philips also observes that various commentators suggest that thereforms reflected neo-liberalism and New Right ideas by fostering a "distrust ofeducational professionals because of the purported fear of capture by vestedinterests" (Philips, 2000, p. 143). This fear of "provider capture" was also veryclear during the development of SSNZC. Not only did it marginalise the viewsand ideas of the social studies education community through much of thedevelopment, it also served to allow other groups to promote views and ideasthought to better represent the directions for the social science learning areaconsistent with neo-liberalism.

THE STORY OF SSNZC 1993-1997: AN "INSIDER" REFLECTION.

This section of the paper examines some of the main events in the social studiescurriculum development struggle within this framework. We describe and reflecton these events as individuals participating in the contest. Both authors weredirectly involved at various points through the development, as writers,consultants and researchers. In addition, we were both office-holders in socialstudies professional associations throughout the development. We acknowledgethat our involvement in the process means we will inevitably bring something ofthe perspective of the roles we fulfllled during that time. However, we believe thatthoughtful participant reflection, within an educational research framework, canmake a valuable contribution to the literature and this is our aim.


Pre-1993 Influences on the 1993-1997 Curriculum Development Process

Educational structures and practices for curriculum development prior to 1989were very different from those operating during the 1993-1997 period. However,ideas and attitudes associated with earlier structures and practices were stillimportant influences during the development of SSNZC and need to becorisidered in understanding the nature of the 1993-97 development.

Social studies as a subject had experienced a number of changes since it wasintroduced into the New Zealand school curriculum following the Thomas Reportof 1944. For example the "New Social Stiadies" movement of the 1960s and 70s wasthe basis of a Form 1-4 Social Studies development between 1973 and 1977. In theresulting Social Studies Syllabus Guidelines: Forms 1-4 (New Zealand Department ofEducation, 1977) there was a strong emphasis upon concepts drawn from thesocial science along with social science skills, values, and social action. The Facesproject (New Zealand Department of Education, 1986) attempted to introducesimilar changes in primary school social studies. In the late 1980s a second roundof curriculum review and redevelopment occurred at the junior secondary levelculminating in the publication of Social Studies, Forms 3 and 4: A Handbook forTeachers (Ministry of Education, 1991). These developments, which oftenemphasised inclusive, pluralistic and post-colonial ideas, were important inshaping the thinking of those involved in the development of the 1997 socialstudies curriculum (Barr, Hunter & Keown, 1999).

Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s a broad coalition of organisations andindividuals worked cooperatively on these developments. The Department ofEducation's Curriculum Development Division (CDD), individual curriculumdevelopment officers, local subject inspectors and advisers, teacher unioncurriculum committees, and university social science discipline "experts", allworked closely with social studies teachers groups, schools and teachers in thesedevelopments. In addition during the 1980s efforts were made to include Maoriand Pacific Islands communities in discussions and developments. The TahaMaori social studies resources of the Te Kiti Raukura project and the WhakamuaKi Conference were examples. There were also efforts made to develop a broadergender focus and to include some economics initiatives such as the Micro SocietyProgramme sponsored by the Enterprise New Zealand Trust.

The period immediately preceding the 1993-97 development was alsocharacterised by the consensus-oriented and richly consultative curriculum reviewof 1984-88. In this development, open dialogue about the future curriculum forNew Zealand schools was very inclusive and a wide range of community groupsand individuals joined the educational community in dialogue and decision-making. This grass roots process made a significant contribution to the shape andstructure of the New Zealand Curriculum Framework (NZCF) (New Zealand Ministryof Education, 1993).

All of these developments fostered an open, inclusive, negotiated, andliberal-democratic kind of curriculum development process. Thus, there was astrong expectation that a similar process would be used in developing curriculumstatements for the individual learning areas in the years following the publicationof the NZCF. However, this was not to be, and the shape and direction ofcurriculum development in New Zealand was radically different by the time thesocial studies development began.

The two key aspects of the reforms discussed earlier, the drive for efficiencyand application of "market" principles to educational development, were quickly

The New Zealand Social Stttdies Curriculum Struggle 1993-1997 . . . 5 9

set in place in 1989 and 1990. The Department of Education, including the CDDwas dismantled. The CDD, and particularly the individual officers withresponsibility for specific subjects, had been key leaders in the cooperativeapproach that produced the curriculum initiatives of the 1970s and 1980s. Thisservice and all its expertise, leadership and extensive networks disappeared. In itsplace a much slimmer and much cheaper contract system for curriculumdevelopment was introduced (Chalmers & Keown, 1999). The "alliance" betweenthe central government agency responsible for curriculum and subject teachingcommunities was broken through a contract system. The new Ministry ofEducation adopted a much more distant approach by separating policydevelopment and implementation, and having less involvement with subjectteaching communities, reflecting the desire to avoid "provider capture."

Situated From the Centre: Inclusive Voices December 1993 - August 1995

In spite of all this, the national social studies development began optimistically, inthe spirit of the curriculum development approaches used prior to 1989. TheSecretary for Education's emphasis on an inclusive, consultative, and participatoryprocess of curriculum development as stated in the foreword to several issues ofNew Zealand Education Gazette (1 February 1991, 1 April 1993 and 16 AprU 1993)appeared to support this. The Ministry of Education advertised contract positionsfor the social studies development in July and October, 1993. The mid-DecemberGazette provided information about contracted curriculum development phasesfor the social studies curriculum and invited submissions from professionalassociations and key sector groups. Ideas from these submissions and guidelinesfrom the social science section of the NZCF informed policy decisions made by theMinister of. Education's Policy Advisory Group (PAG). The resulting policyspecifications defined the curriculum parameters for the successful contractorsand the team of teachers and educators sub-contracted to write content andconsult with stakeholders and reference groups. It was planned that a draft socialstudies curriculum be published at the end of 1994, and feedback be sought fromthe educational community.

The first phase of the curriculum was developed predominantly from thecentre. The key participants at this point were the contracted writing team and thePAG. The selection of contract development leaders from North and South Islandcolleges of education, and the formation of a diverse writing team reflected socialstudies teaching expertise across the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors.

The writing team met for five intensive writing weeks from February toAugust 1994, and worked within the PAG policy specifications based on theinclusive principles and the social sciences Tikanga-a-iwi statement in the NZCF,{Education Gazette, 17 December, 1993). These reflected the economic, social, andcultural contexts of New Zealand in the early 1990s, and emphasised gendered,bicultural and multicultural understanding as necessary in a new syllabus. Thewriting team also used the NZCF in defining the five learning strands anddeveloping achievement objectives. They also reviewed existing social studiesdocumentation, the Year 11-13 history and geography syllabi, and the Year 9-13economics syllabus.

The nature of the new and "efficient" contract system of curriculurhdevelopment soon began to create difficulties for the writing team because of theurgency of the development and the pressure of meeting Ministry contractualoutputs. In addition, each of the writers voluntarily accepted the responsibility of

60 Philippa Hunter and Patd Keown

chairing a reference group for consultative feedback. These groups were set up inthe spirit of wide consultation typical of pre-1989 curriculum development and inkeeping with the inclusive process and "community and teacher ownership"espoused by the Secretary for Education.

Decisions taken in developing the social studies in the NZCF Draft, werestrongly influenced by the Ministry of Education's stated commitment to genderinclusion and the bicultural heritage of Maori and Pakeha. The 1993 Gazettestatements, for example, focused on the celebration of women's suffrage, andinclusive gender policies in education. The commemoration of 150 years of theTreaty of Waitangi (1990), and the establishment of the Treaty of WaitangiAmendment Act (1985), also informed both the NZCF principles and related socialstudies resource developments.

In addition, some writers, particularly those involved in preservice teachereducation, brought research interests and knowledge to further inform or justifydecisions made inside the writing process. It seemed to some of them (personalcommunication) that there was a struggle to establish the rationale, aims andcontent of social studies. No position paper had preceded curriculum statementwriting. The lack of such a carefully constructed position paper meant that thecoordinating developers and many of the writers became involved in investigatingsocial studies theory and practice. Working within a tight contractual time-frame,knowledge of post-colonial, feminist, and post-modern theories and discourseswere brought to the developing curriculum. For example, an emerging focus onMaori and Pakeha cultures and bicultural heritage was influenced by thecontemporary writings of scholars like Ranginui Walker (1990), Angela Bailara(1986), and Claudia Orange (1987). Socio-cultural understandings were supportedby the scholarship of Spoonley (1991, 1993), Rosaldo (1989), and Banks (1988), andgendered understandings influenced by Laufiso (1988), Spender (1989), and Alton-Lee, Densem, and Nuthall (1990). Ideas about barriers to learning were supportedby the research of Simon (1984), Irwin (1989), and Alton Lee and Nuthall (1990).Approaches to teaching and learning in the social studies were influenced byAmerican social studies writers, such as those published in Handbook of research onsocial studies teaching and learning (Shaver, 1991). Thus the approach the writingteam took was fully consistent with trends in society, and in current social studiescurriculum writing, research and development.

Openshaw has suggested that the writers adopted a model of biculturalism"then being advanced by radical land activists with the support of some socialanthropologists" (2000, p.69). However, the information reported above suggeststhat the writers did not promote any deliberate model of biculturalism. Rather, thecultural backgrounds and experiences, subject expertise, research, and curriculumstatements shaped the approach adopted. Openshaw has also commented (2000,p. 69) that the draft writers found liberal feminism to be a more viable approach tothe development, as it did not threaten the existing socio-economic structure.However, the writing team felt they were expanding the boundaries andapproached feminism as an inclusive concept, not an exclusive one. In doing this,they sought to allow diverse perceptions and opinions to be heard, and to showrespect for diversity.

Openshaw has further argued that the central aim of the draft was thecreation of citizens and workers who would accept dominant economic and socialtrends as natural, rather than attempt a critique of them (2000, p. 68). This mayhave been the aim of the Ministry of Education, but the writing team did notoperate to such an agenda. For example, the interpretation and unpacking of the

The New Z e a l a n d S o c i a l S t u d i e s Citrricttlum Struggle ¡ 9 9 3 - 1 9 9 7 . . . 6 1

resources and economic activities learning strand in the context of human socialbehaviour, proved discomforting for writers. Successive PAG critiques of thewriting process supported traditional economics syllabus understandings,seemingly dependent upon stakeholder group feedback from groups such as TheEnterprise New Zealand Trust. The writing team reluctantly accepted PAGinstruction that ideas and concepts such as spirituality and well-being be removedfrom resources and economic activities achievement objectives. Inside the process,the writing team argued against promoting an economic literacy that wouldemphasise economic goals to the detriment of the promotion of national harmony,as argued by Openshaw (1999, p. 93). Writers also felt uncomfortable aboutstrengthening ideas of citizenship manifested in American social studies assuggested by the PAG, because these offered narrow and often exclusiveunderstandings.

Built into the development was an ambitious consultation programme thatsat alongside the writer reference groups. Through four of the five writing weeks,the team reviewed consultative feedback, and the PAG's responses to this, andthen made changes to draft material where appropriate. Approximately 120stakeholder groups were involved in the consultation, including the New ZealandLaw Society, Enterprise New Zealand Trust, The Chamber of Commerce, NewZealand Police, Ethnic Affairs Service, New Zealand Chinese Association, teacherunions and university academics in the social sciences.

Feedback exposed a variety of issues. There were difficulties in unpackingthe strand knowledge statements into achievement objectives over eight levels oflearning. Another challenging aspect involved the articulation of the social studiesskills. The team was adamant that skills be developed and reinforced inconjunction with knowledge, attitudes, and perspectives. The Ministry'scurriculum facilitator and the PAG were initially unconvinced, preferring ahierarchical approach to listing discrete skills and/or building skills intoachievement objectives. The team's compromise position of signalling genericcategories of skills through all levels of the curriculum was clumsy, but enabledthe process to move on.

Conflicts such as these meant that by the fourth writing week, tensionsbetween the writing team and curriculum facilitator in relation to the role andagenda of the PAG, and the review and use of consultation materials were at acrisis point. Writers requested a meeting with the PAG to seek clarification of theuse of terminology such as "pakeha" and "Aotearoa", and to seek PAG views onwhy there seemed to be differential reaction to particular stakeholder feedback.Writers were also pressured to suggest contexts and settings and to write activitysuggestions to exemplify achievement objectives prior to the completion of thestatement, all within a very short time-frame. The co-coordinating writers, skilledin mediation, eased tensions and enabled the group to work through issueswithout the PAG.

Thus, there were significant struggles inside the writing process between thewriting team and the PAG and Ministry facilitator. As the examples above show,at times the PAG made suggestions in support of the "inclusive, liberal-democractic" position, but at other times they seemed to act, consciously orunconsciously, in a way more consistent with the voice of the "neo-liberal andeducationally conservative" group. The contracted writers felt obligated torepresent the social studies community of teachers and learners. The PAG and theMinistry facilitator, on the other hand, often seemed to be asking for closerattention to the needs of the reform agenda. Hursh (2001) notes that neo-liberal


reforms result in governmental organisations that "seek to govern withoutspecifying exactly what must be done, but by presenting the requirements asrational and non-controversial and providing a limited range in which they mustbe implemented" (2001, p. 354). The draft writers were lulled into a false sense ofbelief that the team could exercise freedom and choice, but constantly ran upagairist PAG interventions that appeared to be attempting to restrict or redirect thedevelopment.

Nevertheless the writing team completed the sub-contracted process inAugust 1994, and the coordinating writers finalised the text of Social Studies in theNew Zealand Curricidum Draft and handed it on to the Ministry. After such anintense process, there was difflculty in letting go, and a realisation that the editingand final shaping of the draft was now in the hands of the Ministry.

Situated on the Margins: Dominant Voices July 1995 to September 1996

After the release of Social Studies in the New Zealand Curriculum Draft in December1994, the Ministry of Education contracted teams to deliver teacher professionaldevelopment, and initiated a three-month period of public consultation andfeedback. Opinions varied about the draft. Kelvin Smythe, a consultant andeducational watchdog commented on the lack of convincing main aims (Smythe,1995, p. 1). The Aotearoa New Zealand Federation of Social Studies Associations(ANZFSSA), the national professional body of social studies organisations,supported the main thrust of the draft. However, it made suggestions for furtherspecification of achievement objectives, a greater focus on European settings andperspectives, more consideration of cultures in their own terms, and greateremphasis on research skills and skills coherence (Openshaw, 1999, p. 97).

At the ANZFSSA conference in July the Minister of Education, Dr LockwoodSmith, signalled to the social studies community that critics of curriculum reformcould feed a public debate over the question of indoctrination in social studies(Openshaw, 1998, p. 32). Grant and Sachs (1997, p. 97) have commented thatknowledges and discourses become sites of struggle between dominant andsubordinate groups which is consistent with other literature reviewed earlier. Thepublic discourses about the social studies curriculum following the publication ofthe draft focused most strongly on issues of culture and society. The dominantvoices came from the political Right, exposing a coercive and parochial view ofsocial studies education. The views of those who agreed with the approach tosocial studies taken in the draft were marginalised, and their voices silenced bydominant voices reaching the public audience.

The Education Forum mounted a particularly strong public attack on thedraft, from the outside. Using the media, the Forum sensationally fired a publicdebate by attacking many aspects of both the draft and the NZCF. The Forum andits supporters demonised the curriculum developers and writers for bias towardsindigenous peoples and culture, disregard for the western cultural and intellectualheritage, promotion of Utopian theories, and radicalised notions of race andgender (Brooke, 1995; Education Forum, 1995; Lockstone, 1996). In a submissionthe Forum claimed that the draft was beyond rescue, and that the integratedapproach of social studies should be abandoned, or at the very least, radicallyreworked.

The submission says that if the government insists on an integratedcurriculum it should be constructed in a way that provides intellectual

The New Zealand Social Studies Curriculum Struggle 1993-J997 . . . 6 3

rigour and coherence and a solid knowledge base (Education ForumMedia Release, 28 August, 1995).

It is not surprising that the Forum contracted Dr Geoffrey Partington to prepare itssubmission. Partington was well known for his New Right stance in the context ofBritish educational reform (1980s-1990s). In Britain the New Right had attemptedto revalorise traditional forms of education, particularly those relating to culture.History was fiercely contested "because it provided a catalyst for debates overnational identity, centred on the crucial question, namely what it means to beBritish" (Phillips, 1996, pp. 385-6). An Anglo-centric "we" in terms of nationalidentity was envisaged with the New Right discourse of Partington and others.

Partington (1986) denounced the experts for their denial that "there areany groimds for pride or reverence in the study of the national past andfor their systematic denigration of English, later British history"(Phillips, 1996, p. 389).

Partington's comments indicate his inclination to impose the primacy of thewestern canon on social studies in the New Zealand context.

Thus the professional social studies community was essentially silencedduring this period by louder, stronger, and highly critical voices. The Ministry'scurriculum division was unable, or unwilling, to make an effective publicresponse to the denigration of the draft.. It seemed that doubt and confusion aboutthe social studies curriculum had been sown. This ultimately influenced theMinister of Education's decision to commission a re-draft and pursue a newdirection and approach to the curriculum.

. . . complete redrafting of the social studies curriculum should beundertaken. The task should be undertaken by a small group of peoplewho share the concerns expressed in this submission to rescue socialstudies from disintegration into social therapy . . . (Education Forum,1995, p. 49).

As others have shown (Openshaw, 1998, 1999, 2000; Openshaw & Benson, 1998)the Forum's submission was but one of many. However, it was "the largest and asit turned out the most influential submission" (Openshaw & Benson, p. 1). Inaddition to the strong public support afforded to the Forum's views in the media,the Ministry itself seemed particularly concerned to defuse the criticisms of theForum. For example, when the PAG met to consider the outcomes of thesubmissions on the draft three individuals were asked to address the meeting. TheForum and supporters of its view were very well represented in this groupwhereas the Federation of Social Studies, which had provided qualified supportfor the draft, and who represented the social studies teaching community, was notinvited (Federation News, Neiv Zealand Journal of Social Studies, 5(2) p. 3).

In December 1995 the new Minister of Education, Wyatt Creech, asked theMinistry to commission a redraft. However, the contract for the redraft was notadvertised and very little detail about the process of the development of SocialSciences in the Neiv Zealand Curriculum: Revised Draft (Ministry of Education, 1996)has been made public. A final meeting of the PAG to review the re-draft was heldin April 1996. In May 1996 a media release from the Minister of Educationinformed the public of the revision and a new timeframe for the implementation

64 Philippa Httnter and Paul Keown

of SSNZC in February 1998. The revised draft itself was released in mid-1996. Inthe Education Gazette (15 July, 1996), teachers were advised that the release of asecond draft was unprecedented in curriculum development.

It is important to note here that two key changes in the way the marketmodel of curriculum development operated within the 1993-1997 social studiesdevelopment occurred during 1996. Firstly, the "free market" approach to theletting of contracts within the development was abandoned. All contracts fromthis point on were by appointment, not by tender. Secondly, the PAG wasdisbanded and played no further part in the development. These two changesopened the way for a return to a more direct and cooperative relationship betweenthe Ministry and the social studies community later in the curriculumdevelopment process.

The revised draft reflected changes proposed by key lobby groups,particularly the Education Forum, and presented a traditional Anglo-centricapproach; prescribed content and repetition of the existing history, geography andeconomics content. Many in the social studies community, including the first draftwriters, viewed the revision with dismay and concern. Tensions were buildingwithin the social studies community, particularly among advisors and facilitatorscontracted by the Ministry of Education to provide professional development. Theswitch to a social studies statement that was structuraUy and ideologically verydifferent proved a catalyst for teachers to review the curriculum process morecritically than previously. The Ministry sought feedback to the revised draftthrough public submissions from July to October 1996. The Ministry claimed therehad been no conspiracy or secrecy surrounding the writing of this second draftand a policy manager of learning and evaluation commented that the documentwas stronger than the final draft in affirming a bicultural and multiculturalsociety. "The document addresses issues of cultural difference in a dispassionateway. Its language is measured" {Education Revieiv, July 24-30, 1996).

Thus debates towards the end of 1996 reflected the polarisation of the debatea year earlier over the first draft. The foreword of the Education Forum'ssubmission on the revised draft, by Dr. Kenneth Minogue, attacked social studies"as not a subject . . . it is a compendium of clichés" (Education Forum, 1996, p.viii). The significant concessions made to the views of the Forum in the RevisedDraft appeared to have done little to placate the voices of the Right!

Countering Dominant Voices: July to December, 1996

While the period following the release of the second draft had seen considerablepublic debate, most of it was lead by the Forum and its supporters or was inresponse to the Forum's views. In the period following the release of the seconddraft the scope of the debate became wider, and a broader range of groups andindividuals became involved. The voices of the supporters of the inclusive, liberal-democratic camp began to be heard.

In 1996 the New Zealand Qualifications Authority's development of socialstudies unit standards was hindered by the changes in curriculum statements, anda Maori version of social studies Draft Tikanga-a-iwi, was shaped around therevised draft. These initiatives provided a means for social studies teachers tofurther critique the ideological differences in statements and get involved indiscussion through subject associations. A groundswell of dissent was discernablethrough public comments countering Ministry of Education and Forumstatements over the revised draft. In July 1996, Kelvin Smythe criticised the

77¡e New Z e a l a n d S o c i a l Stitdies Cttrricttlttm Struggle 1 9 9 3 - 1 9 9 7 . . . 6 5

revised draft on the grounds that it would impede race relations and wasincompatible with the Human Rights Act. (Neiu Zealand Education Review, 24 - 30July 1996).

The Ministry of Education rejected claims of racism (Education Review, July24-30, 1996), and the Race Relations Office did not uphold the complaint.However, the Race Relations Conciliator, Rajen Prasad, suggested the reviseddraft needed to do more to promote race relations and to develop a "cultureconscious" society. In The Evening Post (21 July, 1997) Atihana Johns, a preserviceeducator, expressed concern about the cultural omissions of the revision, andwrote of an ethnically cleansed curriculum, and lamented the loss of pakeha todefine ethnicity, identity and cultural heritage (Education Revieiv, September 1996).Philippa Hunter addressed social studies teachers at an Auckland Social StudiesAssociation Seminar Day in October 1996, and commented on the mismatch anddeceit of the revised draft. She noted that the draft's statements relating tobicultural, multicultural, gender and individual needs, had been placed in thefront section of the document, but the ideas were absent from the new set ofachievement objectives. Further, the language was bland and sanitised. Forexample the Treaty of Waitangi was reduced to "the story of an agreement".

The social studies community rallied to express its views and used editorialcomment (Barr, 1996) and a media release in support of the ANZFSSA submissionto coimter dominant voices. The Federation's submission stated, "There is a clearand consistent view across the associations, that the Revised Draft is in mostrespects an unacceptable base document for social studies in New Zealand in itspresent form" (ANZFSSA, 1996, p. 5). It also noted that "the Revised Draft has notanswered most of the submission points made by the Federation in 1995" andindeed suggested that "in a number of places changes go in the opposite directionfrom the features of the draft praised by the Federation's earlier submission". TheFederation argued strongly for "the restatement of key terminology and emphasessuch as Tangata Whenua, Pakeha, Tangata Pasifika and culture and genderinclusion", and "the place of social action to be restored" (ANZFSSA, 1996, p. 17).

Reclaiming Voices: December 1996 to December 1997

As the pendulum of the social studies curriculum "contest" started to swing backtowards the centre, a "natural left constituency" concerned with issues of socialjustice, responsibility, and democratic empowerment (Shapiro, 1995, p. 27) beganto strengthen. An opportunity for the social studies community to "reclaim" thedevelopment arose in December 1996. Some criticisms during 1996 had focused onthe lack of a researched position paper to support the development (EducationForum, 1996; Irwin, 1996). Subsequently, the Ministry of Education took up asuggestion from the social studies academic staff at The University of Waikato toprepare a researched position paper under contract. The paper was to begrotanded in international and New Zealand social sciences theory and research todefine the nature, purpose, and rationale of social studies in the New Zealandcurriculum.

In January 1997, a Ministry of Education manager commented that, inhindsight, the team that won the writing contract for the first draft had not putenough emphasis on the rationale behind the curriculum (Editcation Review,January 23). The position paper presented a clear rationale and set of aims; acoherent structure for the curriculum, and reported on recent theoreticalunderpinnings from the social sciences. The researchers consulted widely with


academics in international and national settings. The social studies processes ofinquiry, values exploration, and social decision-making were framed to solveongoing problems with the function and placement of skills. Perspectives werebuilt into the structure and presented currency, relevance, and opportunity forcritical afñliation (Hill, 1994).

The position paper has not as yet received critical analysis in terms of itsrelation to the final document, SSNZC (1997). It was, however, influential inshaping the structure and content of SSNZC. It offered clear suggestions on how tocombine the best features of the two drafts with key ideas from the social studiesliterature. It also provided a clear rebuttal of many of the sensational claims of theEducation Forum. Associate Education Minister Donnelly told the 1997 ANZFSSAConference that after reading the position paper he concluded, "the currentposition held by the Business Round Table . . . (The Forum's parent body) . . .isreally reactionary, trying to turn back the tide of time" (Donnelly, 1998, p. 18).

The Ministry of Education attempted to tidy up the revised draft in April andMay 1997. A group of teachers and social studies educators who had not taken adirect part in the development of the two drafts was assembled. By this stage theMinistry was working more closely with the social studies community and theFederation provided nominations for this group to the Ministry (Federation News,NZ Journal of Social Studies, October, 1996).

Initially the group met for one writing week in Wellington to review allmaterial developed to that date, including the position paper, and to begin workon a final document. Some members of the group were then involved in a secondweek, and worked with contracted advisors and facilitators of teacher professionaldevelopment at a hui (meeting) in Hamilton. The Ministry hoped these two weekswould provide the basis for a final document. However, two weeks wasinsufficient for such a complex task.

Meanwhile, a group of social studies educators, previously involved with thefirst draffs policy, writing and consultation, was approached to write a handbookto support the final statement. This group comprised five teacher educators, threeof whom had been writers of the Waikato position paper and two who had beenfirst draft writers. By July 1997, the handbook team found it was impossible tomeet contractual requirements because flaws in the curriculum statement'sstructure, achievement objectives, and overall coherence, needed to be addressed.As a result, the handbook contract was put aside, and new contract variationsnegotiated, and the group was transformed into a writing team, with the task ofcompleting the final curriculum statement using all the material now available.

As this work proceeded Ministry policy analysts sought to impose newrequirements on the curriculum, including further specification of achievementobjectives to support new Ministry assessment policies and auditing procedures.The writing team argued that social studies needed flexible and open objectivesand that teacher professionalism could address assessment and audit issues. In theend, a compromise was reached, and it was agreed that indicators, (supportingstatements indicating what students may come to know, understand, or be able todo), would be developed in conjunction with each achievement objective. Theseaimed to give content and learning outcomes greater clarity, while leaving theachievement objectives open-ended.

At this stage the Ministry was under considerable pressure to complete theproject and there was minimal time to consult with the social studies community.However, a national social studies conference in September 1997 enabled theMinistry and writers to disseminate information and gain support for the final

The New Zealand Social Sttidies Cttrricttlum Struggle 1993-1997... 6 7

statement. A feature of this conference was the strong support of the document byAssociate Minister of Education Brian Donnelly (Donnelly, 1998). However, somewithin the Ministry were still nervous about committing to the final re-write.Editorial decisions by Ministry and Learning Media personnel continued to alterthe wording and intent of achievement objectives and were challenged by thewriters. As a result more time had to be taken by writers to further review andrefine changes. There was considerable relief when the Minister finally "signedoff" the document for publication in mid-September. Relief was, however, shortlived, as the document was held up by further requests for a change to thewording of aspects of the resources and economic activities learning strand. Itappeared that lobbyists for the neo-liberal agenda were still active in thebackground. Once again a crisis of confidence nearly upended the finalcurriculum, exemplifying the doubt, confusion and struggle that had permeatedfour years of development. Fortunately, suitable compromise wording wasnegotiated and the perspectives of economics and commercial groups wereaccommodated.

The publication and launch of Social Studies in the Nezv Zealand Curriculum(Ministry of Education, 1997) in November 1997 was a culmination of a struggleby professional educators to reclaim their voice. The result vindicated the veracityof the social studies community in its efforts to challenge neo-liberal andeducationally conservative voices. SSNZC was implemented in schools in 2000.Whilst the curriculum has been supported with limited professional developmentfor teachers, the development of social studies remains dynamic, and fullimplementation of the curriculum will continue to be challenging for teachers andlearners for some time yet.

CONCLUSION

In the introductory section of this paper we suggested that two key forces wereimportant in the curriculum struggles surrounding the development of SSNZC.Firstly there was an intense struggle between two contrasting collections ofinterest groups each seeking to secure the dominance of their ideas as a new socialstudies curriculum statement was developed. Secondly, we suggested thatelements of the neo-liberal reforms of the 1980s and 1990s were also important. Inparticular, the drive for efficiency gains and to achieve a "free market" untaintedby "provider capture," clearly effected the process.

Returning to the controversy over the curriculum content. Smith (1996) hasnoted that there tend to be two contrasting views on what school studies aboutsociety should be like. The first view is constructed around ideas such as the needto bolster the cultural traditions of Western society through the study of theestablished disciplines of history, geography and economics and a view that thisshould be done in a way that ensures academic excellence, objectivity and rigour.The positive contributions of western civilisation to the world, and the advantagesof a capitalist-free enterprise market economy, need to be emphasised. Studies thatcritically examine western political and economics systems or reinforce culturalrelativism, must be avoided. This description is similar to that of many in thegroup referred to in this paper as the neo-liberal and educationally conservativevoice group.

Smith suggests that a second view is based around beliefs such as theimportance of providing students with the knowledge and skills to understand theeffects of rapid social change. This includes the increasing cultural diversity and


plurality of society. This approach also considers it important to encourage thedevelopment of critical evaluation skills and decision-making skills. There is alsoan emphasis on full participation in the democratic process and on undertakingsocial action, as opposed to being a disinterested onlooker or passive recipient ofsocial policy. This is similar to the view of the group referred to in this paper asthe inclusive, liberal-democratic voice group.

Throughout the development of the curriculum statement these two groupsstrove to gain the ascendancy for their view, as indeed they are democraticallyentitled to do. In the early stages of the development the inclusive, liberal-democracy view appeared to be in the ascendancy. Events prior to the start of thedevelopment and the content and style of final draft were in this vein. Therelatively smooth progress of the early stages of the development meant that theinclusive, liberal-democratic group was almost totally unprepared for the strengthof the campaign mounted by the neo-liberal and educationally conservativegroup. The submissions of the Education Forum and the writings and publicpronouncements of its spokespersons were strongly in the mould of the first ofSnnith's views. These voices quickly gained the upper hand in the period followingthe release of the draft in late 1994, and remained ascendant until after thepublication of the position paper in early 1997. However, the social studiesassociations, the national body (ANZFSSA), social studies educators and a varietyof voices from the wider community such as those of Prasad, Johns and Donnelly(1998) rallied support for the inclusive, liberal-democratic view. In addition, thewriting of the final document was, for the most part, entrusted to a small group ofwriters of the previous drafts and was affirmed by advisers and professionaldevelopment contractors, as well as by the 1997 ANZFSSA conference. Theinclusive, liberal-democratic voices were dominant once again.

The influences of the neo-liberal reforms in the "struggle" were subtle andnot publicised. Two main examples have been explored in this paper. The first isin the way the contract model of curriculum development created difficultiesthroughout the development because of the way it altered the relationshipbetween the teaching profession and the Ministry. We have shown some of thetensions and pressures that this model created for the writing teams involved inthe first draft and in the production of the final document. Interestingly, the neo-liberal reforms also had the effect of paring back the educational bureaucracy tosuch an extent that the curriculum expertise and the financial resources of theMinistry were unable maintain the momentum of the development through a longand difficult process. In the end the Ministry had to abandon the original "freemarket" model of curriculum development, and return to a more cooperativerelationship with the social studies community to complete the development.

A second example of the influence of the neo-liberal reforms discussed is thestruggle over the level of specificity of the strand achievement objectives. Thestrand achievement objectives in the first draft were, in the view of many, toogeneral. The second draft strand objectives, on the other hand, were considered bymost social studies teachers and educators to be far too narrow and restricting.From a neo-liberal reform perspective, though, these could be seen as ideal inproviding tighter specification and greater control from the centre and moreaccountability and surveillance. However, the final outcome of this struggle, the"indicator compromise", meant the objectives remained relatively open. Again,inclusive, liberal-democratic voices prevailed.

Thus this paper takes a different perspective on the final outcome of thecurriculum contest than that advanced by Openshaw. He sees the final document.

The New Zealand Social Stttdies Curricuhtm Struggle ¡993-1997 . . . 6 9

in some ways at least, as a weak compromise that leaves major issues for schoolsto address (Openshaw 2000, p. 81). Certainly, there have beeri compromises, andwe agree with Mutch that the final document is more "centrist" than either of thetwo drafts. However, it has been argued that through the return to more"inclusive" terminology and structures, and the retention of open and flexibleachievement objectives, SSNZC represents a final solution consistent with thewishes of most social studies professionals.

The case study we have reported raises serious questions about futurecurriculum development. The basic model of development in the 1990s was whatChalmers and Keown (1999) called a "thin agency and contractor" model; thin asin a slimmed-down cultural curriculum agency with fewer curriculum agents,with curriculum development being contracted. It seems timely to reappraisewhether this is the most effective model for future developments, particularly inview of the problematic nature of recent social studies curriculum reform.

REFERENCES

Alton-Lee, A.G., Densem, P.A. & Nuthall, G.A. (1990). "I only think of the men ... Idon't think of the women ..." SET, 2(6), NZCER.

Alton-Lee, A.G. & Nuthall, G. A. (1991). Understanding learning and teaching project:Phase Two. Final report to the Ministry of Education. Christchurch: University ofCanterbury.

Aotearoa New Zealand Federation of Social Studies Association. (October,1996). Areport on social studies in the New Zealand curriculum: The revised draft.ANZFSSA.

Aotearoa New Zealand Federation of Social Studies Associations. (December 5,1996). Media release: Education Forum submission on social studiesinaccurate and unrepresentative says social studies educator's organisation.

Bailara, A. (1986). Proud to be White?: A survey of pakeha prejudice in Neiu Zealand.Auckland: Heinemann.

Banks, J. (1988). Mitlti-ethnic education: Theory and practice. Boston: AUyn andBacon.

Barr, H. (1996). Editorial comment. New Zealand Journal of Social Studies, 5(1), p. 2.Barr, H., Hunter, P. & Keown, P. (1998). The common good in the New Zealand

social studies curriculum. A Paper presented at. Defining the common good: Achallenge for the 21st century. The 79"" Annual Conference of the NationalCouncil for the Social Studies. Orlando, Florida.

Benson, P. & R. Openshaw (1998). (Eds.) New horizons for New Zealand social studies.Palmerston North: ERDC.

Brooke, A. (1995) Crippled curriculum proposed. The Dominion (27 October).Chalmers, L. & Keown, P. (1999). The engineering of a curriculum and assessment

framework for geography in 2001 and beyond. Proceedings of the 20"' NewZealand Geography Conference. Palmerston North: New Zealand GeographicalSociety, 11 -17.

Donnelly, B., (1998). Conference keynote address. New Zealand Journal of SocialStudies, 7(1), 17 -19.

Education Forum (1995). Media release: Submission calls for rejection of theproposed social studies curriculum for schools. August 28.

Education Forum. (1995). Social studies in the New Zealand Curricuhtm: A submissionon the draft. Wellington: Education Forum.


Education Forum. (1996). Social studies in the New Zealand curriculum: A submissionon the revised draft. Wellington: Education Forum.

Elley, W. (1996). Curriculum reform: Forwards or backwards? Delta, 48(1), 11-18.Giroux, H. (1988). Border pedagogy in the age of postmodernism. Journal of

Education, 170 (3), 162-181.Goff, P. (1990). Learning for Life IL Wellington: New Zealand Goverrunent.Goodson, I (1992). Becoming a school subject. In 1. Goodson (Ed.), The making of

curricuhtm, pp. 160 - 183 London: Falmer Press..Grant, C. A. & Sachs, J. M. (1995). Multicultural education and postmodernism:

Movement toward a dialogue. In B. Kanpol & P. McLaren (Eds.), Criticalnntlticitltitralism, uncommon voices in a common struggle. Westport, CT: Berginand Garvey.

Hill, B.V. (1994). Teaching secondary social studies in a multicultural society.Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Hunter, P. A. (1996). The revised draft: An incomplete puzzle. Changes, OctoberIssue.

Hunter, P. A. (1999). The social studies perspectives: Challenging teaching andlearrüng, years 1-13. New Zealand Journal of Social Studies. 8 (2), 52-62.

Hursh, D. (2001). Social Studies within the neo-liberal state. The cbmmodificationof knowledge and the end of imagination. Theory and Research in SocialEditcation, 29(2), 349-357.

Irwin, M. (1996). Curricular confusion: The case for revisiting the New ZealandCurriculum Framework: Seminar on implementing the curriculum.Auckland: New Zealand Business Roundtable.

Irwin, M. (1999). A decade of curricular reform. Neiv Zealand Journal of EducationStudies, 43(1), 156-166.

Irwin, K. (1989) Multicultural education: The New Zealand response, 1974 - 84.Neiu Zealand Journal of Education, 24(1), 3-18.

Kanpol, B. & McLaren, P. (1995). Critical multicultitralism; Uncommon voices in acommon struggle. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.

Laufiso, E. (1998). A Samoan woman's perspective on sexism. The Social StudiesObserver, 21(2), 15-16.

Layton, D. (1972). Science as general education. Trends in Editcation, 1972 Issue.Lee, G., & Hill, D., (1996). Curriculum reform in New Zealand: Outlining the new

or restating the familiar? Delta, 48(1), pp 19 - 33.Lockstone, R.G. (1996). The end of history at the end of the world. Neiv Zealand

Editcation Review, 30,5.McGee, C. F., (1995). Ideological influences on curriculum and teachers. Waikato

Journal of Editcation , 29 - 44.McGee, J. (1994). The social studies curriculum initiative: A progress report. Neiu

Zealand Journal of Social Studies, 3,(1), p 6.McGee, J. (1998) Curriculum in conflict: The historical development of citizenship

in social studies. In Benson & Openshaw (Eds), New horizons for New Zealandsocial stitdies. ERDC Press: Palmerston North.

McCulloch, G. (1992). Defining and defending subjects: The case of the NewZealand Geographical Society. In G. McCulloch (Ed.), The school curricuhtm inNew Zealand: History, theory, policy and practice (pp. 165-184).PalmerstonNorth: Dunmore Press.

Mutch, C. (1998). The long and winding road: the development of the new socialstudies curriculum. Proceedings of the New Zealand Education and

The New Zealand Social Studies Cttrricttlttm Strttggle ¡993-1997 . . . 71

Administrat ion Society, Te« years on: Reforming New Zealand education.NZEAS: Wellington.

Mutch, C. (1999). Social studies: Left, right and centre. A panel presentationprepared for the Pacific Circle Consortium Annual Conference, Hawaii.

New Zealand Department of Education, (1977) Social Studies Syllabus Guidelines:Forms 2-4. Wellington: Department of Education and Government Printer.

New Zealand Department of Education (1986), Faces 6: Social Studies in the primaryschool. Wellington: School Publications Branch of the Department ofEducation.

New Zealand Department of Education (1989). Social Studies in secondary schools.Booklet 1, A guide to the syllabus. Wellington: Department of Education.

New Zealand Education Review. (July 24, 1996). Social studies allegedly racist.Reporter Donald Matheson.

Nezf Zealand Education Review. (October 30,1997). Fresh Draft Doesn't Blow it.New Zealand Herald. (January 21, 1997). Social studies syllabus a compendium of

clichés: Curriculum has ideological bias stamped all over it. KennethMinogue for the Education Forum.

New Zealand Herald. (Monday August 28, 1995). New social studies formatsavaged: Forum says biased draft should be ditched.

Neiv Zealand Education Review (1996). Social studies allegedly racist Quly 24-30).Nezü Zealand Education Review (1996). Letter to the Editor, 11-15, September.New Zealand Education Review (1997). (January 23, 1997), Search continues for the

meaning of social studies.New Zealand Ministry of Education. (1991). Social studies forms 3 and 4: A handbook

for teachers. Wellington: Learning Media.New Zealand Ministry of Education. (1 February, 1991; 1 April, 1993; 16

April,1993; 17 December,1993; 15 July,1996). The New Zealand EducationGazette: Wellington: New Zealand Government.

New Zealand Ministry of Education (1993). The New Zealand CurriculumFramework (Te Anga Matauranga o Aotearoa). Wellington, Ministry ofEducation.

New Zealand Ministry of Education. (1994). Social Stitdies in the New Zealandcurriculitm: Draft. Wellington: Learning Media.

New Zealand Ministry of Education. (1996). Social Studies in the New Zealandcurriculum: Revised draft. Wellington: Learning Media.

New Zealand Ministry of Education. (1997). Social Stitdies in the New Zealandcurriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Openshaw, R. & Archer, E. (1992). The battle for social studies in the New Zealandsecondary school 1942 - 64. In R. Openshaw (Ed.), Neiu Zealand social studies:Past, present andfliture (pp.49-64). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.

Openshaw, R. (1998). Citizen who? The debate over economic and politicalcorrectness in the social studies curriculum. In P. Benson, & R. Openshaw(Eds.), New Horizons for New Zealand Social Studies. Palmerston North:ERDC Press.

Openshaw, R. & Benson, P. (1998). New horizons in New Zealand social studies. PaperPresented to the 78"" Annual Conference of the National Council for SocialStudies, Anehiem, California.

Openshaw, R. (1999). Issues raised for social studies educators by the submissionsto the draft statements for the new curriculum. Proceedings of the ANZFSSAConference, (September), Palmerston North.


Openshaw, R. (2000). Culture wars in the Antipodes: The social studies curriculumcontroversy in New Zealand. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28(1), 65-84.

Orange, C. (1987). The Treaty of Waitangi. Wellington: Allen and Unwin/PortNicholson Press.

Phillips, R. (1996). History teaching, cultural restorationism and national identityin England and Wales. Curriculum Studies, 4 (3), 384-399.

Philips, D., (2000). Curriculum and assessment policy in New Zealand: Ten yearsof reforms. Editcational Reviezv, 52(2), 143-154.

Rosaldo, R. (1989). Culture and truth: The remaking of social analysis. Boston: BeaconPress.

Shapiro, S. (1995). Educational change and the crisis of the Left: Towards apostmodern educational discourse. In B. Kanpol & P. McLaren (Eds.), Criticalmulticulturalism. Uncommon voices in a common struggle. Westport CT.: Berginand Garvey.

Shaver, J. P. (Ed) (1991). Handbook of research on social stitdies teaching and learning.New York: Macmillan International.

Simon, J. (1984). "Good Intentions, but. . ." National Education, 66(4), 61-65.Smythe, K. (1995). Guff roar: Structural whimper and a lost opportunity.

Developmental Netzvork Newsletter, Issue 2,10-17.Smith, R. (1986) Social studies education the need for appraisal. In K. Wiltshire,

Controversies and outcomes of civics and citizenship editcation, Melbourne:Victorian Curriculum Corporation.

Snook, I., (1997). Democracy, education and the New Right. In M. Olssen & K. M.Matthews, (Eds). Editcation policy in New Zealand in the 1990s and beyond.Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.

Social, Physical and Health Education Department. (1997). A position paper: Socialstudies in the New Zealand school curriculum. Prepared for the Ministry ofEditcation, New Zealand. School of Education, Hamilton: University ofWaikato.

Spender, D. (1989). Invisible women: The schooling scandal. London: Women's Press.Spoonley, P., (1991). Pakeha ethnicity: A response to Maori sovereignty. In P.

Spoonley, D. Pearson, & C. Macpherson, (Eds). Nga Take: Ethnic relations andracism in Aotearoa Nezv Zealand. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.

Spoonley, P., (1993). Racism and ethnicity in Nezv Zealand. Second Edition.Auckland: Oxford University Press

The Evening Post (21 July, 1997) Race relations boost urged.Walker, R. (1990). Ka Whazvhai tomt matou: Struggle without end. Auckland: Penguin

Books.

Copyright of Waikato Journal of Education is the property of Waikato Journal of Education and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

THE NEW ZEALAND SOCIAL STUDIES CURRICULUM STRUGGLE …